Question

A description of the population (POVERTY) the current policy approach covers and An explanation of the funding levels for the current policy approach (POVERTY) and whether they are sufficient to address the issue.

Answer 1

Global population is increasing by about 1.5 percent per year, a growth rate (should it persist) that in less than half a century will double the number of people who live on the planet. On the other hand, modern medical techniques are producing life extension but not healthy life extension, and we are seeing numbers of old and chronically sick or disabled elderly people in increasingly longer economically unproductive retirements, who need consequentially increasing numbers of younger people to support them.

The ability of the Earth to sustain the human population, posed by Malthus over 200 years ago, is a serious question. Dependence on finite resources for energy and water is already threatening international stability. Potentially exponential population growth can only make matters worse. Improving economic development in the most populous countries of the developing world (India, China) is leading to changing patterns of demand, as people seek more affluent lifestyles. Food and energy demands are increasing faster than had been predicted. Air quality resulting from over-rapid industrialisation is becoming a major problem that will have major public health effects. The likely determinants of climate change, usually attributed to the developed nations, are now spread throughout the developing world, making the ability of nations to achieve the targets signed-up to at Kyoto unlikely to be achieved. Religion is a significant factor in population growth: families in catholic families tend to be larger than protestant, and Muslim tend to be larger than others.

An effective public health system that can assure the nation's health requires the collaborative efforts of a complex network of people and organizations in the public and private sectors, as well as an alignment of policy and practice of governmental public health agencies at the national, state, and local levels. In the United States, governments at all levels (federal, state, and local) have a specific responsibility to strive to create the conditions in which people can be as healthy as possible. For governments to play their role within the public health system, policy makers must provide the political and financial support needed for strong and effective governmental public health agencies.

Weaknesses in the nation's governmental public health infrastructure were clearly demonstrated in the fall of 2001, when the once-hypothetical threat of bioterrorism became all too real with the discovery that many people had been exposed to anthrax from letters sent through the mail. Communication among federal, state, and local health officials and with political leaders, public safety personnel, and the public was often cumbersome, uncoordinated, incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate. Laboratories were overwhelmed with testing of samples, both real and false. Many of these systemic weaknesses were well known to public health professionals, but resources to address them had been insufficient. A strong and effective governmental public health infrastructure is essential not only to respond to crises such as these but also to address ongoing challenges such as preventing or managing chronic illnesses, controlling infectious diseases, and monitoring the safety of food and water.

What is Poverty?

In simple terms, poverty is not having enough money or access to resources to enjoy a decent standard of living; be that the lack of access to healthcare, education or water and sanitation facilities etc.

Historically, poverty in the UK was defined as either primary and secondary in studies by Seebhom Rowntree in the 20th century.

• Primary poverty means not having enough money to meet basic needs, it can also be considered as ‘living below the poverty line.’
• Secondary poverty is when people earn just enough money to afford the necessities, but spend part of it on “coping mechanisms” to deal with financial and work-related stress (high risk and/or difficult working conditions due to abuse and long hours) and therefore end up struggling to make ends meet.

Understanding the cycle of poverty

Statistics worldwide back this conclusion today, people born into poverty are much more likely to remain poor. Some people might escape it, but for the majority, hard work isn’t the solution when the economic system works against them. This is what constitutes the cycle of poverty.

Not having access to healthy food, decent housing, electricity, water means you effectively live in severe, absolute poverty. And the cost of these things is too high for you to afford them, or at least you can’t afford them all. So, which one do you prioritise.

What is relative vs. absolute poverty

Absolute poverty is when household income is below a certain level, which makes it impossible for the person or family to meet basic needs of life including food, shelter, safe drinking water, education, healthcare, etc.

In this state of poverty, even if the country is growing economically it has no effect on people living below the poverty line. Absolute poverty compares households based on a set income level and this level varies from country to country depending on its overall economic conditions.

Relative poverty is when households receive 50% less than average household incomes, so they do have some money but still not enough money to afford anything above the basics. This type of poverty is, on the other hand, changeable depending on the economic growth of the country.

• Relative poverty is sometimes described as “relative deprivation” because the people falling under this category are not living in total poverty, but they are not enjoying the same standard of life as everyone else in the country. It can be TV, internet, clean clothes, a safe home (a healthy environment, free from abuse or neglect), or even education.
• Relative poverty can also be permanent, meaning that certain families have absolutely no chance of enjoying the same standards of living as other people in the same society currently have access to. They are basically “trapped” in a low relative income box.

When the relative approach is used to measure poverty, there is another concept that needs to be explored – persistent poverty. This is when households receive 50 or 60% less income than average incomes every 2 out of 3 years. Since long-term poverty has more impactful consequences on economic and social conditions, persistent poverty is an important concept to bear in mind.

Relative poverty is a form of social exclusion

On the whole, poverty is about exclusion. In its most extreme form, it’s the inability to access what you need for a decent life. Relatively speaking, in more developed countries, it’s being excluded from what constitutes normal daily life:

• Internet to access jobs or public services
• The proper clothes to find that job
• Paying for education
• Access to decent housing (respiratory diseases is one of the most common symptoms of poor housing)

Relative poverty depends on the level of development of the country. It’s about giving everyone the chance to enjoy the same living standards so that everyone has an equal opportunity to live their life to their full potential. In that sense, fighting poverty is about unlocking huge, untapped economic potential within each country.

Communities operate in the context of federal and state policies that can affect local government decisions relevant to health through laws and regulations, through the allocation of resources, and by shaping political will on issues and approaches. Among the more widely recognized policies are those that fund or regulate health care delivery services. But policies in a variety of areas, ranging from education to land use and housing, the environment, and criminal justice, can be relevant to health disparities. Policies can vary significantly across geographic areas and over time in establishing priorities, providing funding, or encouraging collaboration. They can provide important opportunities or constitute barriers to promoting health equity. The policy context shapes the levers that are available to communities to address change.

It seems reasonable to assume that the better informed communities are about the implications of federal and state policy and policy changes, the greater their ability will be to respond effectively to address health disparities and help achieve change in the determinants of health. And, conversely, the more the needs of communities are considered in decision making at the federal and state levels, the more effective those policies will be. In other words, policy makers have the opportunity to lay the groundwork for community success.